Title Author Date

Creationism Nunley, Colton Oct 06, 2005

Dear Talk Reason,
First let me say that I am a Creationist and I believe every word of the Bible. My reason for contacting you is this. I waould like to inform you that none of the articles on your site have any substantial evidence for the evolution theory. Would you please send to me any bit of information that is supposed to prove evolution? So far no evolutionist has been brave enough to even respond to my emails. Please email me back with your evidence if you have any.
Also, I would like to call your attention to something that you may find interesting. The Big Bang Theory could not have possibly happened. Why? I'll tell you. There is a law in physics called the Conservation of Angular Momentum. It states that if an object is spinning and breaks apart (in a frictionless environment) then all of its pieces will be spinning the same direction. Do you realize that several of the planets in our solar system are spinning backwards? Not only that but some moons also spin backwards and some travel backwards around their planet. How then can the Big Bang Theory be true?
I thank you for taking the time to read this and ask that you please respond. That is unless you are to afraid of being proven wrong by a high school student from eastern Kentucky.
Sincerely,
Colton Nunley

Title Author Date

Creationism TalkReason , Oct 06, 2005

Dear Colton:

Thanks for your letter. You state that you are a creationist and believe every word of the Bible. If that is so, why are you asking for
arguments which would be against your beliefs? Since you are confident that you already know the truth, this in fact ends a discussion as far as you are concerned. It obviously does not occur to you that thousands of scientists,
who have worked very hard, studying their fields of knowledge for many years, conducting experiments and observations, discussing their hypotheses on conferences and in print, may be closer to the truth than a high school
student with no experience and a limited baggage of knowledge. A good example is your self-confidence in denying the big bang theory. Many highly qualified scientists have come to the conclusion that the observed
properties of the universe point to the big bang as the best explanation of the facts. It is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of experts, based on factual data. In particular, don't you think that the question of planet's rotation has been paid enough attention by scientists? You could have found explanations of that problem by conducting a fast search via Google. If you are interested not in just asserting your beliefs but in
exploring facts and modern scientific theories in an impartial way, you have a long path ahead of you - a path of studying the enormous wealth of knowledge accumulated in science. How you reconcile scientific knowledge with "every
word of the Bible" is something you will have to choose yourself. Good luck.

(By the way, there are good explanations of the directions of planet's rotation in many popular books on astronomy. We at Talk Reason are not in the business of teaching elementary foundations of any science, including cosmology or astronomy, to individual visitors.)

Talk Reason

Title Author Date

Creationism Rossow, Amiel Oct 08, 2005

Dear Colton:

First of all, the problem you point to (the directions of rotation of planets) has nothing to do with the big bang. The solar system emerged when the universe had already existed for eons since the big bang.
Whatever mechanism of the planets motion caused the particular directions of their rotation, it is compatible both with the big bang and with its absence.
Moreover, you seem to misinterpret the law of angular momentum conservation. It does not assert that after a system's breakdown all of its parts must rotate in the same direction. What it does assert is that the total angular momentum of a system is conserved if no external torques act upon it. Torque is an axial vector, as well as is the angular momentum. The vector sum of all angular momenta should be the same before and after the breakdown, if there are no external torques. However, the individual parts of the system may have angular momenta around any axes and in any direction, provided their vector sum is conserved. Maybe it will be easier for you to comprehend it, if, instead of angular momentum> conservation, you look at the linear momentum conservation law. It says that the total momentum of a system is conserved as long as no external forces act upon the system. This law also is formulated in a vector form.
If your assertion were correct, it would mean that, after a system moving along a straightlinear path breaks apart, all of its parts must move in the same direction. This is patently wrong. Say, a bomb is dropped which explodes at a certain height above the ground. The fragments fly in all directions rather than continue a motion downward. The sole restriction imposed by the law of momentum conservation is that the vector sum of momenta of all parts equals the momentum the bomb had before exploding (note that explosion involves only internal forces in the system, otherwise the law would not apply). What must continue moving downwards, is the center of mass of the system, not each individual fragment.
If some external forces (or, in case of rotational motion, external torques) act upon the system, the laws of momentum conservation and of angular momentum conservation become simply invalid and the motion of system's fragments may take any form depending on the external forces (or torques). The existence of external forces (or torques) at the solar system's emergence cannot be excluded.

[continued]

Title Author Date

Creationism Rossow, Amiel Oct 08, 2005

[continued]

Conseqeuently, another fault of your thesis is that you make certain implicit assumptions which not necessarily apply to each planet. One such implicit assumption is that all planets emerged as results of their separation from the sun. In fact many planets may have a different origin, such as being once free-flying celestial bodies captured by the sun's gravitation, or such as, say, being bodies which emerged as results of their own condensation processes, etc. The same argument applies to moons many of which originated not by separating from their planets, but by various different mechanisms.
As to your bold assertion that no article on Talk Reason provides evidence of evolution, it only can invoke shrugs. If all these articles cannot convince you in the validity of evolution theory, it most probably is due not to the weaknesses of these articles, but rather to your inability to properly judge the evidence, which was sufficient to convince almost every mainstream scientist. Apparently your comprehension of these articles is not better than your interpretation of laws of momentum conservation. It is no wonder that those evolutionsts you addresed your inquiries to, did not reply - your notions are immediately recognized as puerile and jejune, so scientists, who usually are quite busy with their research, see no reason to get involved in a debate with an underpepared correspondent. Your statement about alleged lack of bravery on the part of evolutionists reveals your inflated image of yourself as of a serious opponent of evolution.

[continued]

Title Author Date

Creationism Rossow, Amiel Oct 08, 2005

You request "bits of information" which would "prove" evolution. First of all, science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular, are not mathematics so rather than talking about proofs, it is proper to talk about evidence. The overwhelming majority (certainly over 99%) of professional biologists who have studied the matter in great detail, agree that the evidence for evolution theory is so strong, that there is in fact no controversy about it in science but only debates about particular details. Your disagreement with pro-evolution biologists most probably stems from your inadequate educational background in biology,(like it is shown to be in case of laws of physics), fortified by your beliefs which, as you apparently think, are incompatible with evolution theory. Indeed, it may be quite problematic to reconcile the scientific data with "every word of the Bible" which you have stated to believe. Perhaps you may entertain a notion that you simply are yet unprepared to understand those articles by scientists you try to denigrate. It takes a good deal of arrogance to assert that you, a high school student (if that is who you are) know better than tens of thousands of professional scientists. It will take some effort on your part to gain enough knowledge to be able to judge the articles in question. In the meantime you may believe anything you choose, but your personal beliefs are just that - and they have no evidentiary value insofar as facts of science are discussed.

Please start with studying the proper understanding of laws of physics.

Best wishes,

A. Rossow